You might want to highlight that in your report.
Whenever a contributor is paid now , at least in my case, they submit an amount in VITA not in $VITA.
The same applies to senior reviewers
I do not know for Stewards
Overall I am not against the report itself but i see a lot of recommendations and the rationale is either non-present or difficult to understand, as it can be seen from the comments
Happy to help to update the report to make rationales clearer
this comment was not to do with the report, it was explaining the use of the word ânominalâ in a previous comment
Given that you often refer to $VITA in your report you might want ot specify the definition of it.
Once again, I am trying to be helpful by pointing out that the rationale for your proposals are not always clear
and you often refer to payments being made in $VITA , as I said this is not my experience. You submit payments with VITA as the unit not $VITA.
For example senior reviews are paid 200, 400 VITA - not 200, 400 $VITA
I would be much more comfortable with this if it was tied to concrete milestones or something measurable.
Totally agree. My proposal for Builder Squad was for it to have a Yearly Plan, with activities and goals to be achieved with those activities, similarly to how charities operate. The YP and the Budget is approved by tokenholders, and then the Steward + squad are free to execute within that plan. Youâd need additional gov for anything not included. This is very applicable to the entire DAO.
It forces people to do proper strategic planning and emphasizes that there isnât an infinite budget there to do things (and especially ad hoc activities). I am sure we have lots of people with experience leading strategic planning sessions in the community.
P.S. @aschwartzphd are you planning to have a version of the YP at some point?
There is no difference between VITA and $VITA, they are not two different things. I just forgot to type a dollar sign in one of my comments on this thread. There is not a separate coin or anything.
The way the Squad approached this was providing a broad outline for working groups, but leaving it up to those working groups and the DAO in general to set up guidelines/milestones. We did not think it was appropriate for us to try to micromanage the activities of these groups moving forward.
I do not know how the previous distribution of VITAs across these 3 constituencies was so it might have been even more skewed.
But for an organization that aims to decentralize science it is very much centralized. Just 5 people will account for 36% of compensation in VITAs over the next 4/5 years .
A solution might be to involve more willing VitaCORE members inside working groups and find ways to delegate more of the work currently done by stewards to working group members .
As a DAO, we have a lot of work ahead, and it might be beneficial to make sure that a higher number of people have a significant stake in it.
At least this is how I feel and itâs just my personal opinion
No, that makes perfect sense. Itâs the WGs who need to design their Yearly Plans.